STEECH 



OF 



HON. I. WASHBURN, JR., OF MAINE, 



ON THE 



BILL TO ORGANIZE TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS IN 



NEBRASKA AND KANSAS, 



AND 



AGATNST THE ABROGATION OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE. 



HOUSE OF REPRESENT ATI VElS, APRIL 7, 1854. 



WASHINGTON: 

PEINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICB. 
1854. 






vY 



NEBllASKA AND KANSAS. 



The HonsebeinjET in the Committee of the Whole 
on the slate of the Union — 

Mr. WASHBURN, of Miiine, said: 

Mr. Ciiairmam: In the last half of the nine- 
teenth century we find a proposition in the Con- 
gress of the Republic to extend the area of slavery. 
This is the object and purpose of certain provisions 
in the bill for the organization of the Territories 
of Nebraska and Kansas. These provisions re- 
move the restrictions imposed by the Missouri 
compromise. The Badt^er amendment, and the 
opinions which it has elicited; I pass by as of no 
practical importance or interest. It is enough to 
secure any opposition tliat the bill, with or with- 
out thai amendment, exposes all our unorganized 
territory to the occupation of slavery, although 
that territory, by a compact intended to be as last- 
ing as the existence of the Stale of Missouri, has 
been set apart for freemen. 

This in the last half of the nineteenth century. 
In the last half of the eighteenth century opinions 
and sentiments prevailed in the Colonies and the 
States of a very dillcrent character from what are 
implied in the bill to which I have referred. I have 
thought that it might not be ill-timed or unprofit- 
able to present some of them to the notice of Con- 
gress and the country- 

At a convention held in Williamsburg, Virginia, 
August 1, 1774, it was 

"Resolve.}, We will neither otir'spIveB import, nor pur- 
chase aiiv slave or slaves iinp'trted l>y any oUicr person, 
alter ihelirsl day ol" Nnveyiibor iirxt, either I'roin Africa, the 
W'c.-t indies, or any other place." 

Mr. Jelferson addressed a letter to this conven- 
tion, in which he wrote as follows: 

" For the most iriflins roasons, and sometimes for no con- 
ceivahle reasuii at all, his Majesty has rejected laws of the 
most salutary teiideiici'- The abolition of domestic slavery 
is llio greatest object of desire in those {;;olonies, where it was 
Hnhappilv introduced in llieir infiint slate. Uiit previous to 
the enfranchisement of the slaves, it is necessary to exclude 
ail further iniporialions from .Mrica. Yet our repeated 
alleinpts to elfccl this by prohibition, and by imposing duties 
which iiii'.;ht amount to prohibition, have been hitherto de- 
feated bv his Majesty's nepalive. Thus preferring the im- 
mediate advantages of a few Afriean corsairs to the lasting 
interest of ihe American Slates, and to the right-s of human 
nature dec|)ly wounded by this infamous master." 

At a provincial convention held in North Car- 
olina the same year, the following resolution was 
passed: 

" Resolved, That we will not import any slave or slaves, 
or purchase any slave or slaves imported or brought into 
the province by others, from any part of the world, afl^r tlic 
first day of Xoveinbcr next." 

The Representatives of the district of Darien, in 



Georgia, passed a resolution, in 1775, from which 
i read/ 
I ''To show the world that we are not influenced by any 
conlracte<l or interesti^d inoliveii, but a general philnnlhrO|iy 
for all mankind, of whatever climate, langunge r)r com- 
plexion, we hereby declare our disapprobation and .llilior- 
rence of the unnatural practice of slavery in America, 
(however the uncullivat":d stale of our country or other 
specious arguments may plead for it,) a practice founded 
in injustice and cruelty, anil highly dangerous to our liber- 
ties, (as well as lives,) debnsing a ilurtof our fellow crea- 
tures below men, and corrupting the morals and virtues of 
the rest." 

Mr. JelTerson in the " Notes on Virginia," thus 
discourses on slavery. 

" There must doubtless be an unhappy influence on the 
' manners of our people, produced by llie cxi-tence of sla- 
! very among us. Tile whi>le commerce between master and 
, slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous pus- 
•>ions, the most unremitting despotism on the one p.irt, and 
degrading submissiim on the other. Onr childrr/n see this 
and learn to imitate it, for man is an imitative animal. 
; This qnalily is the germ of all education in him. Trom 
his cradle to his grave he is learning to do what he sees 
others do. If a parent could find no motive, either in his 
philanthropy or his self-love, for restraining the intemper- 
ance of bis passion towards his slave, it should always be 
n siitlicient reason that his child is present. But /•enerally 
it is not sufficient. The parent storms, the child looks on, 
catches the lineaments of wraih, puts on the same airs in 
the circle of smaller sl.ives, gives a loose rein to his worst 
I passions, and thus nursed, educated, and daily exercised in 
; tyranny, cannot but bo stamped by it with orf(on« jteiuliari- 
ties. The man must be a prodigy who can retain liisinan- 
I ners and morals iindepraved by such circumstances. And 
Willi what execralioii should Ihe statesman be loa<led, who, 
permitting one half of the citizens thus to trample on the 
rights of the other, transf.>riiis those into despots, and these 
into enemies, destroys the morals of the one fart, and Ihe 
I amor jnitria of the o"thetr For if a slave can have a coun- 
try in this world, it must be any other in preference to that 
in which he is born to live and labor for another ; in which 
be must lock up the faculties of his naiiire, contribute as 
far as ho depends on his iiidividu.\l efforts to the evanish- 
mertt of the human race, or entail his own miserable con- 
dition on the endless generations proceeding fri>m him. 
With the morali of the people, their induilry aho is de- 
stroyed. For in a warm diiniite ii'i man will labor for him- 
self who can make another labor for him. This is so true, 
that of the proprietors of slaves a very small proportion, in- 
deed, are ever seen to labor. And can the liberties oi a 
nation be thought secure when we have removed their only 
firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that 
these liberties are the gift of God .' That they ar<! not to be 
violated but wilh His wrath.' I.nuekd I tremhi.k for my 

COUNTRY Wilts I REFLECT TH\T(JOD IS JfST ; THAT Ills 

JUSTICE CANNOT si.KKF FOREVER; that considering num- 
bers, nature, and natural means only, a revolution of the 
I wheel of fortune, an exchange of siiuatloii, is among pos- 
I siblc events ; that it may become probalde ty tufiernalural 
j interference. The Ai-MIgiity has no attkibute wmcu 
I CAN take sites with us in such a contkst." 

I In the Federal Convention that formed the Con- 
stitution, Gouverneur Morris said: 
I " lie never would concur iu upholding domestic slaveij'. 



It wss a nefarious institution. It was the curse of Heaven 
on tlie States where if [ireviiiled." * * " Upon what prin- 
ciple is it that the slaves shall be computed in the represen- 
tation ? Are they men r Then make lliem citizens, and let 
them vote. Are they property.' Why then, is no other 
property included."'— Vide Madison Papers volume 111, 
pages l-J6.'5-'4. 

Colonel George Mason, of "Virginia, said: 
" Slavery discourages arts and manufactures. The slaves 
produce the most pernicious effects on manners. Every 
master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the 
judsnient of Heaven on a country. As nations cannot be 
rewarded or punished in the next world, they must be in 
this. By an inevitable chain of causes and eHects, Provi- 
dence punishes national sins by national calamines." 

" I hold it essential, in every point of view, that the Gen- 
eral Government should have power to prevent tha increase 
of slavery. "— Vide Madiion Papers, volume 111, paf;e 1.391. 

Said Mr. Ellsworth, of Connecticut: 
" Slavery in time will not be a speck in our country." — 
Same volume, page 1392. 
Mr. Sherman, of Connecticut, said: 
" He was opposed to a tax on .slaves, because it implied 
tliey were property." — Ditto, p. 1396. 
Mr. Madison said, in the convention: 
" I think it wront; to admit the idea, in, the Constitution, 
that there can be property in nian." j 

Said Mr. Iredell, of North Carolina, in the con- i 
vention of that Stale, speaking of the clause of j 
the Constitution in regard to the slave trade: ' 

" When the entire abolition of slavery takes place, it ' 
will be an event which must be pleasing to every generous 
mind, and every friend of humau nature."— SWioiCs De- 
bates. 

Mr. Wilson, of Pennsylvania, speaking of the 
same clause, said: 

' " I consider it as laying the foundation for banishing sla- 
very out of the land. The new Stales that are to be formed 
wiil be under the control of Congress in this particular, and 
slaves will never be introduced among them." — Vide El- 
liotfs Debates, 

The Hon. Josiah Parker, of Virginia, a mem- 
ber of the first Congress under the Constitution, 
said: 

" He hoped Congress would do all in their power to re- 
store to human nature its inherent privileges, and, if possi- 
ble, wipe off the stigma which America labored under. 
The inconsistency of our principles, with which we are 
justly charged, should be done away, that we may show, 
by our actions, the pure beneficence of the doctrine we 
hold out to the world in our Declaration of Independence." 

Colonel Bland, of the same State, said: 

" He wished slaves had never been introduced into Amer- 
ica; but as it was impossil>le, at this time, to cure the evil, 
he was very willing to join in any measures that would 
prevent its extending further." 

Sir, the views of our fathers, in reference to 
this vexed and exerting question, found utterance 
in such expressions as I have quoted. Shall our 
views be expressed by the slavery provisions of 
this bill ? If so, whence this change in public 
sentiment.' Slavery an evil, to be restrained and 
removed. Slavery a blessing, to be extended and 
perpetuated. Which side shall v/e take.' What 
record shall we make up.' The gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Clingman] admits this 
change, and attribute.^, it to causes not particularly 
flattering, I think, to southern character. True, 
he says Washington and Jefferson were of opinion 
that slavery was an evil, and that it would die out 
in no very long time. But they lived in the dawn 
of American republicanism, and had not learned 
all that was taught in the philosophy of human 
bondage. True, they were respectable men, and 
did pretty well for their time; but now, in the 
accumulated experience and enlarged wisdom of 



this age, their opinions and authority are hardly 
worthy of the respect of the gentleman's notice. 

Experience, says the gentleman, has shown that 
slavery is profitable, and that the section of coun- 
try where it exists is prosperous and flourishing. 
Hence the opinions of men, in the light of expe- 
rience, have iindergone a change; and slavery is 
now considered an institution that ought to be 
protected, extended, and perpetuated. Thus, 
sir, according to the gentleman's showing, this 
change of opinion in the South, concerning sla- 
very, has its foundation in the cupidity and avarice 
of the southern slaveholders. In short, humanity 
does not pay. 

Mr. Chairman, among the reasons assigned by 
the friends of this bill for the abrogation of the 
Missouri compromise, the following are the most 
prominent: 

First. It is unconstitutional; in violation of the 
principles of self-government recognized in our 
political system. 

Second. It is unconstitutional and unjust; for it 
denies equality of right in the States. 

Third. Whatis called the Missouri compromise 
was not a compact binding the slaveholding sec- 
tion of the country, for it had not the proper and 
competent parties to it, to create such obligation. 

Fourth. But if this were otherwise, the compact 
has been so often violated by the non-slavehold- 
ing party, by reason of their refusing to extend it, 
and in other respects, that it is no longer binding 
upon the slaveholdhig party. 

Fifth. It is inconsistent with the principles of 
the compromise of 1850, and should therefore be 
declared inoperative and void. 

If these reasons are not entirely consistent with 
each ot Iter, it may be thought sufficient by those who 
use them, if any one is sound and valid. You will, 
however, permit me to say, that as I have heard 
them advanced from time to time, I have been ' 
reminded of a defense made, a few years ago, in 
! one of our courts, to a suit on a promissory note. 
The counsel for the defendant, in opening his 
case, said: 

" We have, may it please the court, four defenses to 
this action: First. My client was a minor when he gave 
! the note. Second. It is barred by the statute of limitations, 
i Third. He never signed it ; and, fourti), he has paid it." 

[ But, sir, I deny all these propositions of the 
' friends of repeal. I deny them in the gross and 
i in the detail. I affirm the authority of Congress 
I to make the restriction, and its duty to preserve 
' it; and this affirmation I will endeavor to sustain, 
both upon principle and authority. And first, on 
principle. The country which we propose to or- 
ganize is of the possessions and within the limits 
of the United States. No other Government has, 
or can have, any power or jurisdiction over it. 
There must exist now, there has existed since its 
purchase from France, the power somewhere to 
legislate concerning it. It could not be in France; 
it could not be in the territory; for there have not, 
till recently, been any people there, and none are 
legally there now. Where, then, could it exist, 
ifnot in the Government of the United States? 
This power of legislation in Congress results from 
the necessity of the case; it is also derived from 
the Constitution. Mr. Clay, in his great speech 
in February, 1850, to which I shall haveocca;-ion 
to refer hereafter, deduced it from the clause which 
■ gives Congress authority to make " needful rules 
and regulations for the territory and property of 
the United States," and from the treaty-making 



power. How are such "rules and regulations" 
to be made? Of course, liy lee;isluiive enactments; 
and such enactments niiiy, iind should be, such 
as Congress, in its wisdom, sluill judj^e for the 
advantage of the Territory and the wliole country. 
It niny, if it ciiooses,and believes iIkU the comnmn 
welfare will be promoted, refuse to sell an acre of 
the huuls, or to permit a settler to go there. It is 
not bound to open the country to seiilement to- 
day, or to-morrow. But it may do so, and when 
it does, it may establish such regulations, and im- 
pose such conditiot)8, as the owners (who can 
only act by majorities) shall see fit. It may [no- 
vide for an organization of the Territory; and, in 
doing eo, if it perceives that without some funda- 
mental restriction, practices may grow up, and , 
institutions be established, which will reduce the 
value of tlie lands, and render them unsalable, 
lead to disorders and difficulties, it mr.y make 
such restrictions. Why, sir, the narrowest con- 
struction of the constitutional provision in refer- j 
ence to needful rules and regulations, cannot 
exclude the grant of this power. If Congress 
sliould consider that it would be an evil to the 
Territory, and the country at large, to have sla- 
very established there, or if it should have just 
reason to apprehend that gambling, in any of its 
forms, would become the chief occupation of the 
people, it would be more than strange to say that 
it may not make such rules and regulations as 
ishould render li improbable that slavery would be 
introduced, or gambling engross the time and 
waste the substance of the |ieople — rules which 
should tend to exclude institutions or practices 
which, by universal consent,, would be of evil 
example, and scandalous to the country, (as 
polygamy or cannibalism,) and would secure to 
the Natiotial Treasury receipts commensurate • 
with the just value of the lands. 

This doctrine of congressional intervention 
passed unquestioned and unchallenged till 1848, 
when a new light rose above the horizon — a light 
which has " led to bewilder," if it has not " daz- 
zled to blind." Then we were told, for the first time, 
that the people of the Territories should be left to 
govern themselves — be free from the control, direc- 
tion, or supervision of the General Government. 
What people; and who are they to govern? Shall 
a tent full of hunters or outlaws, or the first half 
dozen men who go into the Territory, make rules 
and laws which shall give direction taall succeed- 
ing legislation, and fix the character of the insti- 
tutions to be established there ? Because we believe 
in the doctrine of self-government, shall we say 
that there are no extreme cases which are ex- 
ceptions to the rule? Do we say so practically? 
Minors, married women, and black men are, in 
most cases, excluded from the exercise of this 
right, if it be such ; and it is not a little remarkable 
that this doctrine of universal sovereignty should 
be first mooted for the special purpose of depriving 
adult men, guilty of a skin not colored like our 
own, of ihe right to govern themselves ! 

But, if self-government is really meant by the 
friends of this" bill, why have they not provided 
for it? Why have they carefully excluded it, save 
in a single particular, if at all ? If the first settlers 
of Nebraska and Kansas are competent to decide 
upon the great question of slavery, are they not 
qualified to judge of the petty details of legislation ? 
The bill is intervention from one end to the other. 
Examine it — but you may as well expect to find 
milk in a male tiger, as the principle of non-inter- 



vention in this bill, [Laughtet-.] It has interven- 
tion on the fir.tt |)age, for the very act of organiza- 
lion implies the power and necessity of congres- 
sional interference. It is on the second imge, where 
you reserve to the Government of the United Stales 
the right to divide the territory hereafter; on the 
tliird patre, where you declare that the governor 
and secretary shall be appointed by the President 
and Senate. You will not allow these men, with 
nil their God-given rights, to choose their own 
governor — to appoint their secretary, their mar- 
shal, their attorney. You kindly do it for them, 
and facetiously term the process ;)o;)i(/(irsorfr(!igtW!/. 
You limit, on the fourth page, the members of 
their council to thirteen, and refuse them author- 
ity to increase the number of their representatives 
beyond thirty-nine. Why not permit the people to 
determine this matter for themselves? Are they 

; not, upon your own reasoning, belter qualified 
than you, to judge in respect to the proper num- 
ber of their councillors and representatives? We 
find on the sixth page, " that no session in any 
one year sliall exceed the term of forty days, ex- 
cept the first session, which may continue sixty 
days." Who knows best — the members of the 
Territorial Legislature or the members of Con- 
gress — the length of time required by the Legisla- 
ture to consider the wants and interests ef the 
people of the Territories ? 

Again, we read, " that the right of sufiVage and 
of holding office shall be exercised only by citi- 
zens of the United States." Why, sir, I thought 
the doctrine of ''squatter sovereignty," as the 
Senator from Michigan [Mr. Cass] exultingly 
termed it, on the morning of the passage of this 
bill in the Senate, implied that the people of these 
Territories were to govern themselves without the 
intervention of our laws — that there a man 's rights 
depended upon the fact that he was a man. rilay 
not a man be a man, or a squatter a squatter, 
although he may not be a citizen of the United 
St-ites? Oh, the beauties, rare and radiant, of 
non-intervention! Proceeding with the bill, I no- 
tice, on the seventh page, that certain rules of 
taxation in respect to property of the United States 
and of non-residents are established by Congress. 
All very right, undoubtedly; but very like inter- 
vention. The same page acquaints us with the 
fact that the Governor has a veto on the doings of 
the Legislature, so far as to enable him — though 
not chosen by or from the people — to exercise a 
legislative power equal to one sixth of the mem- 
bers of both Houses. 

Now, the laws which this Legislature may 
pass, must be enforced, and questions will arise 
as to their construction and validity. By whom 
shall these questions be decided — by judges ap- 
pointed by the people and to them responsible, or 
by the appointees of a distant Executive? Of 
course non-intervention answers, the former, but 
this bill, on the 9th page, the latter. So if the 
people shall choose to taboo slavery the slave 
owner denies the validity of the law, and he goes 
to the court with his case, a court appointed by 
the Prer^ident and Senate of the United Slates, 
liable to removal by the President; and do you 
think that such judges as will be appointed, have 
never heard of the southern opinion, that it is not 
competent under the Constitution of the United 
States, for a Territorial Legislature to pass any 
law for the prohibition of slr.very? 

Well, Mr. Chairman, in your faith in popular 

, sovereignty, you have ordained, on the same 



6 



9th pag-e, " That justices of the peace shall nnt i 
have jurisdiction of any matter in controversy h 
where the title or boundaries of land may be in | 
dispute, or where the debt or sum claimed shall i 
exceed one hundred dollars." You cannot trust the jj 
people to define the jurisdiciion of justices of the peace, ij 
and I believe you call it self-government ! And on |l 
the 10th page, such is your confidence in the judg- j| 
ment and discretion of the people, you havej| 
arranged for them the order of business in their li 
courts. Such, sir, is*your doctrine of non-inter- j: 
vention, in practice; a doctrine which you flatter ' 
yourselves is to make this bill popular in the North, i 
and by which you hope to bring northern rnem- , 
hers to its support. It is all a delusion and a sham, ' 
is you will have seen by the citations which I j 
have made, and which might be greatly extended, j 
1 do not deny the propriety and wisdom of these 
provisions — I only say that they are clearly and 
essentially inconsistent with the pretexts upon i 
which you urge the passage of this bill. 

But let us test this question of non-intervention a 
little further. The sovereignty you hold is not in 
the General Government but in the people of the 
Territory. If so, they may do whatever they | 
choose, pass laws without your intervention or ' 
advice, establish their ov/n institutions, create an ^ 
order of nobility, make a king — why not.' Tliis j 
Government cannot intervene. If they ask to be ^ 
admitted as a State, you may require that they 
shall come in with a republican form of govern- \ 
ment; but if they do not ask, you have nothing to 
say or do. You cannot compel them to form a 
constitution, and petition to be admitted into the 
Union. They may remain out of the Union in- 
definitely, and you have no bond of connection 
with, no authority over, them. This, although 
they are within your exterior boundaries, upon 
territory ceded to, and the property of, the United 
States. They are at th« same time inside of the 
Union and outside of it ! Yet, such must, be the 
result if you deny the right of intervention. If you 
admit it, you leave its limitations, from necessity, 
to the discretion of Congress, under the Constitu- 
tion. Such are the difficulties and absurdities in 
the way of a practical exposition of this doctrine. 
But no matter; " Will you not let the people of 
the Territories govern themselves?" You cannot, 
fully, until they becoms citizens of States; and 
not then, even, for they will be under the restraints 
of the Federal Constitution. The very term, the 
fact, of territorial government repels the idea of 
full and unqualified selt'-government; it is a terri- 
torial government; the government of a ward. 
You pay from the National Treasury the expenses 
of these governments, you build the public edi- 
fices, furnish tlie libraries, extend over the Terri- 
tories your revenue and postal laws, and criminal 
Jurisdiction. You care for them, extend to them 
your aid and protection, you defend them, and 
you are bound to do it all. You are interested in 
them, all the States are interested in them, as 
future partners, and you must make such regula- 
tions and impose such conditions for them as will 
render them desirable partners. 

The Senator from Michigan, [Mr. Cass,] and 
the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. Stephens,] 
have likened the situation of the Territories to 
that of the American Colonies before the Revolu- 
tion. But there is no analogy between the cases. 
The Colonies, were distant, outside dependencies, 
with no prospect of a union or fusion with the old 
country; attempts were made to tax them, in an 



ofTevisive form, not for their own advantage, nor 
with any hope of advantage to them, and without 
their consent. Here, the Territories are integral 
parts of the American Union, soon to take their 
places as sovereign States in this great sisterhood 
of republics. In the mean time — during their mi- 
nority, they are to be looked after, cherished and 
protected by the General Government. If that 
Government should pass arbitrary and unjust laws 
to operate on the T-erritories; should set up an 
intolerable tyranny over them, the people of the 
Territories might, as our fathers did, resort to the 
ultimate right — the right of revolution. 

One word more as to the right of the first set- 
tlers in a Territory to fix the character of the insti- 
tutions to be established therein. These settlers 
do not, in such case, legislate for the Territory 
alone; they act for the whole country in esme 
mieasure. You and I, sir, are interested in what 
shall be done. We are owners, interested in the 
soil, in the uses to which it sliall be appropriated; 
in the institutions which shall grow up thereon; 
whether they shall strengthen the Union, or plant 
the seeds of dissolution and decay. And I am 
interested to know whether these infant commu- 
nities are to be led up into States in which five 
chattels shall have apolitical representation in this 
House, equal to what is enjoyed by two of my 
neighbors and myself? The early legislation con- 
cerning the Territories should have regard to all 
! these high interests. These interests are in the 
' keeping of this Government; and the people will 
j hold the Government, and Congress, which is its 
[ organ, to a strict responsibility. 
j But I desire to let the friends of the bill answer 
J each other. The principal grounds upon which 
:' it is advocated are non intervention, and equality of 
'' riglits, or the right of the southern people to carry 
; their slave property into the Territories. Thefor- 
!i mer has a northern and the latter a southern face. 
jj Of the friends of repeal, perhaps half of them 
!i favor it on the principle of non-intervention, ut- 
|! terly denying the validity and even plausibility of 
' the other doctrine. The other half scout the heresy 
I; of non-intervention, and contend manfully for 
ji equal rights. These parties answer each other 
|i most perfectly a)id conclusively. See how it is 
!| done. I now ask your attention to what is said 
!' of the doctrine of non-intervention. 
Ij Senator Brown, of Mississippi, says: 
■ " Wtiat I contend for is, that if the people have the ripht 
of self government, as contended for hy the Senator from 
Michigan, then you have no right to appoint officers to rule 
over them, nor exact that they shall send up their laws for 
your approval. And if they have not the sovereignty 
whicli entitles them to appoint their own officers, and to 
pass their own laws, independent of your supervision and 
dictation, then they have not that higher degree of sover- 
eignty which entitles them to say what shall, and what 
shall not be property in a Territory inhabited by them, aud 
belonging to the States of this Union. 

Whatever the Senator's opinions may be, and I do not 
question his sincerity, the practical results of his action are 
these : The people, with all their Heaven-born sovereignty, 
have no right of self-government — of free and uncontrolled 
self-gnvernment — until they come to slavery, and then 
their power is as boundless as the universe, aud as unlim- 
ited as God can make it." 

" If I am not mistaken in the antecedents of the Sena- 
tor, some sixteen or twenty years of his now protracted 
and honorable life have been spent in the government of 
on<; of these Territories. He was commissioned to do so, 
not by Heaven, but by tlie President of the United States. 
i The people whom he governed with so much ability, and 
with such acknowledged advantage to them, were never 
consulted as to whether he should be their Governor. The 
President commissioned him, and that was the end of it. 
All the people had to do was to receive him, and to respect 



him as their Governor. When the Senator comei to rrjitx/, 
I shall he glad to learn from him Aotc he jttstijles himu'lj 
in takini; a ma»i'? commission to rule oier a yeojile who 
have aul/iority direct from God hiniielfto goiern them- 
selves ? It seems to im;, without uxplaiiaiioii, that llie Sen 
ator lias stood, according to his own theory, very niiirh like 
a usurper ; and it' I had not the greateiit posHlble veuerii- 
tion and respect for theScnator, 1 would say a usurper who 
had Inipious-ly interposed to wrest from a people the ureatest 
and best gift of Heaven— the ri;;lit of self novcrnnient. " 

Tlie Senator from South Ciirolinu, [Mr. 15i:t- 
LER,] in the course of the debute in tlie Senate on 
tliis bill, expressetl himself a.s follows: 

" I know, sir, Uiat it has been said that wo are parting 
with a great power in giving to the people of the Territo- 
ries the right to regulate their own concerns, according to 
tlieir own opinions, independent of the control of Congress. 
/ admit of no su,h princijde. Justice to myself, the honest 
convictions of niy mind, as well as the authority of great 
minds, who have expressed themselves upon this subject, 
will never allow me to assent to the doctrine, that the first 
comers upon the soil of a Territory can ayprojrrialc it, and 
become sovcreii^n.t over it. No, sir;'the Federal Government 
stands to the Territories in the relation of a guardian to a 
vard. Loiik at i!ie bill as it stands. It prescribes agoveni- 
nient for the people of Nebraska and Kansas ; but if this 
spontaneous, this inherent popular sovereignty is to spring 
up the moment the people settle in a Territory, and assem- 
ble to form a covernnieni, wliy have any bill to put them 
into operation" at all .' You give them a chart, and say they 
must obey it. Suppose they do not choose to obey it. Sup- 
pose that the rtr^t act you get from the Territory of Ne- 
braska or Kansas is fine declaring that no slaveholder shall 
be eligible looiiice in either of those 'I'erritoriea, or that no 
one professing the Catholic religion, or that no Jew, shall 
be eligible to olfice, or that the Mormons shall have a prefer- 
ence, would you tolerate it.' According to some notions 
which I have heard expressed here, having put lliis ma- 
chinery of government iu operation, you have no power to 
control it." 

Mr. Calhoun has denied this doctrine in the 
following terms: 

" But tlie civil rights, the political principles of our Gov- 
ernment, are not to be transferred to those who shall be first 
in the race to reach newly-acquired possessions, or who 
aliall by accident be found upon tliein." 

The Charleston Mercury, in a recent article, 
speaks of squatter sovereignty in these words: 

" If it is intctided to be argued by Senator Douglas, that 
in creating territorial governments, invested with the usual 
powers, tlicy can legislate so as to exclude and abolish sla- 
very, when the very law which organizes them declares the 
Territories open to the immigration and settlement of the 
slaveholder, we must reject sucli a proposition as not only j 
unconstitutional, but as containing upon its very face the 
mark of treachery. It would indeed be the climax of spe- 
cious justice to proclaim non-intervention on the part of| 
Congress as the principle of fairness and llic Constitution, ] 
yet that it should p.nss a law conkerriso iton a tent- ' 

FULL OF HUNTERS AND 0CTLAW8THE RIOHTTO INTERVENE I 
IN THE .MOST ABSOLUTE AND SOVEREION MANNER." 1 

But, that there should be no controversy as to the 
rigH't of the people of the Territories to prohibit | 
slavery, and to test the sincerity of those who were i 
advocating the bill on the ground of popular sov- j 
ereignty. Senator Chase, of Ohio, proposed this i 
amendment: | 

" Under which the people of the Territory, through their i 
appropriate representatives, may, if they see fit, prohibit 
Uie existence of slavery therein." 

The vote upon it was as follows: 

YEAS — Messrs. Chase, Dodge of Wisconsin, Fessenden, 
Fi-h, Foot, Hamliu, Seward, Smith, Sumner, and Wade 
— lU. 

NAYS — Messrs. .\damH, Atchison, Badger, Hell, Benja- 
min, Brodhead, Brown, Hutler, (^lay, Clayton, Dawson, 
Pi.xon, Dodce of Iowa, Douslas, Kvans, Fitzpatrick, Gwin, 
Houston, Hunter, Johnson, J'o;ics of Iowa, Jones of Ten- 
nessee, Mason, Morton, Norris, Pettit, Pratt, Knsk, Sebas- 
tian, Shietils, Slidell, Stuart, Toucy, Walker, Weller, and 
Williams— '66. 

General Cass not voting! 

Here we find the doctrine of popular sovereignty 
repudiated by those who claim to justify their 



voles for this bill upon the afiflumption^that it is 
the true doctrine. And when thus repudiated, the 
author of the Nicholson letter votes for the bill. 

Mr. Chairman, I was somewhat surprised when 
the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. STF.fiiE.vs) allied 
himself with the advocates of this doctrine. I 
liad supposed that he held very ditl'erent opinions 
from those contained in his recent speech. He 
then said: 

"That the citizens of every distinct and separate com- 
munity or State should have the right to govern iheinselveH 
in their domestic matters as they please, and that they should 
be free from the intermeddling reslrictioim and arbitrary dic- 
tallon on such matters lYoni any other I'ower or tiovern- 
meiit in which Uiey have no voice. It was out of a viola- 
tion of this very principle, to a great extent, that the war 
of the Revolution sprung." 

Again: 

" We do not ask you to force southern institutions or our 
form of civil polity upon tlicm ; but to let the free emigrants 
to our vast publia domain, in every part and parcel of it, 
settle this i)Uestion for themselves, with all the experience, 
intelligence, virtue, and patriotism they may carry wiUi 
Ihem. This, sir, is our position. It it, as I have said, the 
original ]iosilion of the South. It is the position she was 
thrown back upon in June, IKiO. It rests upon that truly 
national and American principle set forth in theameniliiient 
oll'ered ill the Senate on the 17th of June, which 1 have 
stated ; and it was upon the adoption «( this principle that 
that most exciting and alarming controversy was ailjiisled. 
This was the turning point ; upon it everything depended, 
so tar as that conipromisc was concerned." 

This, he says, is the original position of the 
South, upon whicih she was thrown iinrk z!i June, 
1850. The original position of the South ! Why, 
sir, I find that upon the llth of .July, 1850, the 
gentleman himself, in answer to the gentleman 
from Virginia, [Mr. Bati.y,] denied this doctrine. 
In reply to what the gentleman from Virginia had 
said on a previous occasion, he remarked: 

" I remember that speech well. I disagreed with itthen, 
and now. I did not then hold, nor do I now, that the peo- 
ple of the Territories had any such right as contended for. 
1 have alluded to this speech barely to answer the gentle- 
man out of his own mouth. I hold that when this Govern- 
ment gets possession of territory, either by conquest or 
treaty, it is the duty of Congress to govern it until the people 
are prepared to he admitted as a State into the Union, at 
the discretion of Congress. " 

The gentleman said something more in the same 
speech which I would commend to his considera- 
tion at this time: 

" We live, Mr. Chairman, in a strange world. There 
are many things of a strange character about us, but nothing 
seems stranger to me than the rapid change which some- 
times takes place in men's opinions upon great questions." 

Now, sir, in the second place, 1 propose to 
examine this question briefly in the light of /lis/ory, 
precedent, and the op'mions of public men expressed 
before this repeal was agitated. 

When taxed with the existence of slavery in 
this country, it has been our answer and defense, 
that it was planted amongst us by the British 
Government and people during our colonial exist- 
ence; that we were not responsible for its introduc- 
tion, but only for our faithfulness in the use of 
means to alleviate and remove it. It was consid- 
ered an evil by the people of the Colonies before 
the Revolution. Tiiis appears sufficiently by the 
extracts which I have given. It was so regarded 
during the Revolution. I need adduce no other 
proof of this than the-Declaration of Independence, 
which declares that " all men are created equal," 
and that they have, among other " inalienable 
rights," that of " liberty." So after the Revolu- 
tion; for, in 1787, the Congress of the Confedera- 
tion made that immortal ordinance which excluded 
slavery forever from the North west Territory. In 



8 



1788, in 8rder «' to establish justice" * * " and 
to secure the blessings of liberty " to themselves and 
their posterity, our fathers established the Consti- 
tution of the United States— an instrument which 
provided for the abolition of the slave trade in 1808, 
and which carefully and studiously excludes from 
its pages the words "slave" and "servitude." 
Under this Constitution we live and act. In the 
light of its provisions and exclusions, and of the 
fact that the old Congress had but just adopted the 
ordinance of 1787, can we believe for a moment 
that it was their intention to frame a Constitution 
-under which Congress would be powerless to 
restrain the extension of so great an evil as they 
held slavery to be? 

Looking along, we find that during the admin- 
istrations of nearly all the Presidents from Wash- 
ington to Polk, territorial governments have been 
organized by Congress, with the approbation of 
southern and northern Presidents alike, which 
have contained provisions similarto the ordinance 
of 1787 and the Wiimot proviso, and by which 
this doctrine of intervention and slavery restric- 
tion has been recognized and affirmed almost from 
the foundation of the Government to the present 
lime. 

In 1820 this Missouri compromise, which con- 
tains the principle of the Wilraot proviso, was 
made, and principally by southern votes. It was 
approved by Mr. Monroe, a Virginian, and it is 
said that its constitutionality was affirmed by his 
Cabinet, which contained such men as John 
duincy Adams, William H. Crawford, John C. 
Calhoun, and William Wirt. I understand, too, 
that the Supreme Court have in various decisions, 
directly or indirectly, recognized its validity. 

To show how distinctly this doctrine was held 
so late as 1850 by our leading public men, I will 
read from the debates of that period, and first 
from Mr. Clay: 

" But I must say, in a few words, that I think there are 
two sources of power, either of wliich is sufficient, in my 
judgment, to authorize tlie exercise of the power, either to 
introduce or keep out slavery, outside of the States and 
within the Territories. Mr. President, I shall not take 
up time, of which so much has been consumed already, to 
show that the clause which gives to Congress the power to 
make needful rules and regulations respecting the territory 
and other property of the United States, conveys thd power 
to legislate for the Territories. 

" Now, sir, recollect when this Constitution was adopted 
that territory was unpeopled ; and how was it possible that 
Congress, to whom it liad been ceded, for the common ben- 
efit of the ceding States and the other States of the Union, 
had no power whatever to declare what description of set- 
tlers should occupy the public lands.' Suppose that Con- 
gress had taken up the notion that slavery would enhance 
the value of the land, and, with a view to replenish the 
public Treasury, and augment the revenue from thatsource, 
that the introduction of slavery there would be more ad- 
vantageous than its exclusion, would they not have had 
the right, under that clause which authorizes Congress to 
make the necessary 'rules and regulations respecting the 
territory and other property belonging to the United States ' 
— would they have no right, discretion, or authority — what- 
ever you may choose to call it — to say that anybody who 
chose to bring his slaves and settle upon the land and 
improve it, should do so .' It might be said that it would 
eniiance tlie value of the property ; it would give import- 
ance to the country ; it would build up towns and villages ; 
and, ill fine, we may suppose that Congress might ttiink 
that a greater amount of revenue might be derived from 
the waste lands by the introduction of slavery than could 
be secured by its exclusion ; and will it be contended, if 
they so thought, that they would have no right to make such 
a rule.'" **♦*»* 

" I will not further dwell upon this part of the subject; 
but I have said there is another source of power equally 
satisfactory in my mind, equally conclusive as that whicti 
relates specihcally to the Territories. This is the treaty- 
making power— the aciiuiting power. Now, 1 put it to 



gentlemen, is there not at this moment somewhere exist- 
ing, the power either to admit or exclude slavery from the 
territories acquired from Mexico .' It is not an annihilated 
power. That is impossible. It is a substantive, actual, 
existing power. And where does it exi^t.' It existed — no^ 
one, I presume, denies — in Mexico prior to the cession of 
those territories. Mexico could have abolished slavery, 
or have introduced slavery, either in California or New 
Mexico. Now, that power must have been ceded. Who 
will deny that .' Mexico has parted with the territory, and 
with it the sovereignty over the territory ; and to whom did 
she transfer it .' She transferred the territory and the sov- 
ereignly over the territory to the Government of the United 
States. The Government of the United States then ac- 
quired all the territory, and all the sovereignty over that 
territory which Mexico held in California and New Mexico 
prior to the cession of these territories. Sir, dispute that 
who can. The power exists, or it does not exist. No one 
will contend for its annihilation. It existed in Mexico. 
No one, I think, can deny that Mexico alienates her sov- 
ereignty over the territory to the Government of the United 
States. Tne Government of the United States, therefore, 
possess all the powers which Mexir.o possessed over 
those territories; and the Government of the United States 
I can do with reference to them — within, I admit, certain 
! limits of the Constitution — whatever Mexico- could have 
done. There are prohibitions upon the power of Congress, 
within the Constitution, which prohibitions, I admit, must 
apply to Congress whenever it legislates, whether for the 
old States or"lhe new Territories ; but within the scope of 
these prohibitions; and none of them restrain the exercise 
of the power of Congress upon the subject of slavery ; the 
powers of Congress are coextensive aad coequal with tlie 
powers of Mexico prior to the cession," 

" The power of acquisition by treaty draws with it the 
power to govern all the territory acquired. If there be 
a power to acquire, there must be a power to govern ; and 
I think, therefore, without at present dwelling further upon 
this part of the subject, that from the two sources of au- 
thority in Congress to which I have referred, may be traced 
the power of the Government of the United Stales to act 
upon the Territories in general." 

I now read from Senator Badger: 

M 1 have said it at home ; I have said it everywhere— I 
have said it at large mass meetings, and I choose to say it 
again, because I have no concealment upon this subject, 
and believe that what I aim at can be besf accomplished 
by a frank avowal of the truth— so far as I understand it. 
I'have said, and I say again, that Congress has the consti- 
tutional power to apply the Wilniot proviso to this Territory, 
and to all the Territories that belong to the United States. 
I believe that Congress has entire power and jurisdiction 
over the Territories— that we are ths supreme law-giver 
over them— may dispose of their institutions as we think 
right, and let in and shut out just whom and just what we 
please." 

Mr. Douglas, speaking of the slaveryTestric- 
tion applied to the Oregon bill in 1848, and for 
which he voted, remarked: 

"It is a simple, plain provision of law, older than the 
Government itself, and, in my opinion, entirely unneces- 
sary ; at the same time that it is free from insuperable corv- 
stilutional difficulty, with the sanction of precedents under 
almost every Administration, to warrant its adoption." 

And of the Missouri compromise he spoke as 
follows: 

"That measure was adopted in the bill for the admission 
of Missouri by the union of northern and southern votes. 
The South has always professed to be willing to abide by 
it, and even to continue it, as a fair and honorable adjust- 
ment of a vexed and difhcult question. In 1845 it was 
adopted in the resolutions for the annexation of Texas by 
southern as well as northern votes, without the slightest 
complaint that it was unfair to any section of the country. 
In 1846 it secured the support of every southern member of 
Congress— Whig and Democrat, without exception— as an 
alternative measure to the Wilniot proviso. And again, in 
1848, as an amendment to the Oregon bill, on my motion, 
it received the vote, if I recollect right, of every southern 
Senator, Whig and Democrat, even including the Senator 
from South Carolina himself, [Mr. Calhomi.] 

If this principle of slavery restriction by Con- 
gress had been deemed unconstitutional, or so very 
objectionable as gentlemen now contend , how could 
it have received the vote of all the southern Sena- 
tors, as above stated; and how could it have been 
moved by the Senator from Illinois himself.' And 



a 

does this extract look as if southern gentlemen, 1 1 
or the Senator, tlioui<lit, at iiny of ihe dates re- ^ 
ferred to, that a refusal by the iN'orth to " con- 
tinue " the Missouri line would obliterate the line 
already established ? 

Now, I desire to know, Mr. Ciiairnian, if any 
question under the Constitution can ever be settled ? 
Sir, is it possible for any right or j)Ower, in re- 
spect to which a doubt can be raised, to be better ; 
established than this of slavery restriction by Con- 
gress? We have contemporaneous construction — 
sixty years of acquiescence and atlirmaiion by all 
the authorities, dejiartments, and tribunals of the 
Government, and the intelligent assent of the ' 
entire peo[>le. M 

With this authority, this history, are we now i 
to be told, or to believe, that Congress has no 
power to legislate for the Territories, or, by such 
legislation, 10 restrict the extension of slavery? If 
slavery be the evil which our fathers, in the South 
as well as in the North, held it to be, what a re- 
proach to their memory if they gave us a Govern- 
ment impotent to restrain it — too leeble to prevent 
its overrunning and blasting tlie free green earth 
of God. Generations have lived and died in the 
faith that this power existed in the Government. 
It was never doubted until political necessities 
broughtoutjin 1848, thecelebrated Cass-Nirholson { 
letter — a bundle of absurdities — with the doctrine 1 
of non-intervention, which, havin"; done no little , 
mischief by its tenciency to unsettle old and well- 
established opinions, will, after this bill shall be 
disposed of, be consigned, by common consent, to 
tliat " limbo large and broad" long since prepared 
as the receptacle of exploded humbugs. [Laugh- J 
ter.] i 

Well, sir, as I have said, the drama of non- : 
intervention after one performance more, will be 
removed from the stage forever. As we some- ; 
times read on the bills, it is " postively for one 
night only." Whether it shall accomplish the 
abrogation of the Missouri compromise or not, it , 
will have filled its destiny. In the former case, 
it will be thrown overboard by the South as a 
thing for which they never had any respect, and | 
now have no further use. Then we shall hear 
that the time has come for the inculcation of the 
true doctrine: "The North is sufficiently weak- 
ened and humbled — the country is ready for it— 
let it be proclaimed everywhere, that the Consti- 
tution of the United States, propria vigorc, carries ■ 
slavery wherever the flag of the Union flies." It 
carries it, we shall be told, into the Territories, 
and neither Congress nor the local Legislatures, 
nor both combined, can restrain its march, for the 
Constitution is above both, is the supreme law of 
the land. Ay, and carries it into all the States, 
for neither State laws nor State constitutions can 
exclude the enjoyment of a right guarantied by 
the Constitution of the Federal Government. 
This, sir, is the doctrine with which we shall be 
vigorously pressed if this bill is carried. Already j 
has it been more than hinted, and whoever has ^ 
noticed the advanced ground which slavery occu- 
pies now, compared with that on which it rested 
in 1850, will not be slow to believe it. ; 

I will here ask your attention to the fact, which 
I meant to have noticed before, that Senator 
HcKTER, of Virginia, the gentleman from North 
Carolina, [Mr. CLi.VGM.w.l'and nearly all southern 
gentlemen who have spoken on this subject, and 
have in any manner recognized the doctrine of^j 
non-intervention, are careful to limit the right of ,1 



the people of the Territories to leglHlate for them- 
selves, by the Constitution of the United States; 
nnd-thnt they liold llnit the Constitution forbids 
all territorial legislation for the prohibition of 
slavery. 

Ann in this connection let me remark, what 
you mutt have observed, that in the debate which 
took place in the Senate a few days ago on the 
Badger amendment, it was di.stincily staled by 
southern Senotors, that in the event of future 
acquisitions of territory, no in)plicution was to be 
drawn from this bill that the people of such Terri- 
tory should be allowed to deride for themselves the 
question of the admission of slavery. 

In view of these facts, northern gentlemen will 
perceive how transcendfiitly important it ia for 
them to.niake, while they are yet able, asucce-^sful 
stand against the aggressions of the slave power. 

I do not mean to say, sir, that all southern men 
are prepared to go tliese extreme lengths I know 
they are not. I know that there is honor, wis- 
dom, moderation, and patriotism in the South, 
but 1 fear they will be overborne by tlie fanaticism 
of slavery; for there is a fanaticism of slavery in 
the South as truly as there is of anti-slavery in the 
North, and I do not think it half so excusable or 
respectable as the latter. 

II. The J\lissouri compromise is ■unconstUutioiial 
and unju.''l — il denies equal rights to the citizens of the 
several States. 

This, 1 think is a very palpable mistake. I do 
not see how the citizen of any Slate is de|)rived 
by the Missouri compromise of any right which 
a citizen of any other Slate can enjoy. The south- 
ern man as well as the northern man can go to 
Nebraska, and when there the same laws will be 
over both. But the southern man complains that 
he cannot carry his local laws with him. The 
northern man cannot carry his, and yet he does 
not complain. That the southern man may not 
lake his slave there is no hardship. Ifhewi.shes 
to go he must content himself to do as the north- 
ern man does, v.ho sells liis properly — hissliipor 
his bank charter — which he cannot take with him. 

Mr. Chairman, lei us look at the practical oper- 
ation of this doctrine. If it be true that a citizen 
of any State can take with him and hold as prop- 
erty in a Territory, whatever is regarded as prop- 
erty in his IState', and neither Congress nor the 
local Legislature can forbid him, what a jumble 
and confusion of rights would ensue. Vor in- 
stance, a citizen of Maine cannot take intoxicating 
liquors with him — a citizen of Pennsylvania may; 
a citizen of Massachusetts cannot carry game- 
cocks — others may; a citizen of New York wmnot 
go with slaves — a South Carolinian may. A na- 
Tive of the Emerald Isle, who may have been in 
the country but a year, if a resident of Illinois, 
where he was a lesral voter, may, upon this theory, 
be a voter in the Territory; but if he has been a 
resident of New Hampshire for twenty years, if 
he has never been naturalized, he can have no 
vote. Well, if lliis doctrine be sound, and such 
is its operation in the Territories, it must by 
parity of reason have the same opera' ion in the 
Slates; and what is denied to be property in every 
State in the Union, except Maine, may be held as 
property by emigrants from that State in every 
other; and so, to this extent, every State must be 
governed by the laws of Maine, to the injustice of 
her own citizens and those of all the other Stales. 

But in this regard I wish to let the northern 



10 



friends of the bill answer the southern friends; 
and I think they do it most effectually. Mr. 
Douglas adverted to this argument in 1850 in 
terms like these: 

" But you say that we propose to prohibit bylaw your 
emigrating to llie Territories with your property. We pro 
pose no sucli thing. We recognize your riglit, in common 
with ourown, to emigrate to the Territories with your prop- 
erly, and there hold and enjoy it in subordination to the 
laws you may find in force in tlie country. Those laws, in 
some respects, dilier from our own, as the laws of the va- 
rious State« oi' this Union vary, on some points, from the 
laws of each other. Some species of property are excluded 
by law in most of the Stales, as well as Territories, as 
being unwise, immoral, or contrary to the principles of 
sound public policy. For instance, the banker is prohibited 
from emigrating to Minnesota, Oregon, or California, with 
his bank. The bank may be property by the laws of New 
York, but ceases to be so when taken infv^ a State or Ter- 
ritory where banking is prohibited by the local law. So, 
ardent spirits, whisky, brandy, all tlie intoxicating drinks, 
are recognized and protected as property in most of the 
States, i(' not all of them; but no citizen, whether from the 
North or South, can take this species of property with him, 
and hold, sell, <>r use it at his pleasure in all the Territories, 
because it is proliibited by the local law — in Oregon by the 
statute'; of the Territory, and in the Indian country by the 
acts of Congress. Nor can a man go there and take and 
hold his slave, for the same reason. These laws and many 
others involving similar print-iples, are directed against no 
section, and impair the riglits of no State in the Union. 
They am laws against the introduction, sale, and use of! 
specific kinds of property, wlnlher brought from the North 1 
oi- the South, or from foreign countries." 1 

General Cass, in his late speech in the Senate, \ 
answered this objection successfully and triuinph- 
antly. He said: 

" The recond objection which I propose to consider, 
connected with this alleged seizure of the public domain, 
is, that a southern man cannot go there because he cannot 
take his property with him, and is thus excluded by pecu- 
liar considerations front his share of the common property. 

" So far as this branch of the subject connects itself with 
slaves, regarded merely as property, it is certainly true that 
the necessity of leaving and of disposing of them may put 
the owners to inconvenience — to loss, indeed — a slate of 
things incident to all emigration to distant regions ; for there 
are itirtiiy species of that property, which constitutes the 
common slock of society, that cannot be taken there. 
Some because they are prohibited by the laws of nature, as 
houses and f.^rnis ; others because they are prohibited by the 
laws of man,' as slaves, incorporated companies, monopo- 
lies, and many interdicted articles; and others again, be- 
cau.se they are prohibited by statistical laws, which regulate 
the transportation of properly, and virtually confine much 
of it within certain limits which it cannot overcome, in 
consequence of the expense attending distant removal; 
and among these latter articles are cattle, and much of the 
property which is everyvi'here to be found. 'J'lie remedy in 
all these cases is the same, and is equally applicable to all 
classes of proprietors, whether living in JMassachnsells, or 
New York, or South Carolina, and that is lo convert all 
these various kinds of property into universal representative 
of value, money, and to take that to these new regions, 
where it will command whatever may be necessary to com- 
fort or to prosperous enterprise. In all these instances the 
practical result is the same, and the same is the condition 
of equality." 

Again: 

" Such a principle would strike at independent and ne- 
cessary legislation, at many police laws, at sanitary laws, 
and at laws for the protection of public and private morals. 
Ardent spirits, deadly poisons, implements of gaming, as 
VPeil as various articles, doubtful foreign bank bills, among 
others, injurious toa prosperous condition of a new society, 
would be placed beyond the reach of legislative interdic- 
tion, whatever inight be the wants or Ihe wishes of the 
country upon the subject. For the constilnticnial right by 
which it is claimed that these species of |>rci|icrly may be 
taken by the owners to the ' territory' of ihe I'Miled States, 
cannot be controlled, if it exist by the local Legislatures ; 
for that might lead, and in many cases would lead, to the 
restriction of its value." 

" And we arc thus brought to this strange practical result : 
that in all controversies relative to these prohibited arti- 
cles, it is not the statute-book of the country where they 
arc to be held, which must be consulted to ascertain the 



rights of the parties, but the statute-books of other Gov- 
ermnents, whose citizt-ns, thus, in efl'ect, bring their laws 
with tliem, and hold on to them." 

III. The Missouri compromise {so called) was not 
a compact binding the slaveholding section of the 
country, because it had not the proper parties to create 
such obligation. 

I maintain that the legislation, in virtue of which 
Missouri was admitted into the Union, had the 
essential elements of a compromise or compact, 
and that the North may fairly hold the South to 
a faithful observance of its provisions. When 
Congress was called upon to pass an act prepara- 
tory to the adinission of Missouri, the northern 
members of the House, with great unanimity, 
opposed lier admission as a slave Stale. Many 
attempts were made to carry the measure, but they 
all failed. It became apparent that no act could 
pass the House of Representatives looking simply 
to the admission of Missouri as a slave State. 
At length a compromise was proposed. Mis- 
souri, in which slaves were then held, was to be 
admitted with a constitution recognizing slavery, 
and the rest of the territory acquired from France 
was to be set apart for freedom forever. The 
bill, as amended by this provision of compro- 
mise, passed both Houses of Congress and be- 
came a law. It was voted for by nearly the entire 
South, and obtained a sufficient number of north- 
ern votes to carry it. The latter were given, as 
the record shows, purely and simply in consider- 
ation of the exclusion of slavery stipulated for in 
the eighth section of the act. Without this exclu- 
sion, Missouri could not have been admitted; with 
it, she becair.e a State. She was adinitted by 
northern votes, and could not have been without. 
It is not of the slightest importance whether one 
tenth or nine tenths of the northern members voted 
for the bill. It is enough that a sufficient number 
voted for it to pass it, and whatever it contained 
for the advantage of the non-slaveholding section 
inured to its benefit fully and completely. And 
because its terms were so hard that it could not 
obtain the favor of a majority of the northern 
Representatives, can afford no reason why the 
North should not enjoy the modicum of justice 
which, it was supposed, was secured to her. It 
should seem that this fact would only enhance and 
render more sacred the obligation of the South. 
But if this compromise is of no force for the rea- 
son now assigned, what is to become of the com- 
promise acts of 1850, no one of which, I believe, 
obtained the votes of a majority of both southern 
and northern members of Congress.' 

Again: The lawyers tell us that subsequent rati- 
fication is equivalent to previous authority; and 
that such ratification may be inferred from long 
acquiescence. The North has faithfully and reli- 
giously acquiesced for thirty-four years in this 
compromise. It is now too late to say that she 
has no claims under it. Why, sir, it is but a lit- 
tle more than a year ago that the present chairman 
of the Committee on Territories [Mr. Richard- 
son] reported a bill for the organization of the 
Territory of Nebraska, in which there was no pro- 
vision for the abrogation of this compromise, and 
no suggestion that it was inoperative and void. 
He advocated its passage with earnestness and 
ability. It encountered no opposition except on 
the Indian question. While it was before the 
House, a gentleman from Pennsylvania, no longer 
a member, [Mr. John W. Howe,] who was in 
the habit of saying that he was a "Whig with Free- 



11 



Soil tendencies, inquired of the treiitleman from 
Ohio [Mr. GinDiN;t;s] why llie l)ill ilui iioi contain , 
the Wilmot proviso? Mr. Giuuings, in reivjy, 
after quoting the eighth section of the act of l&A), . 
remarked that: 

"This Uuv siantis pcrpotunlly, niul I did iioi iliink tlinl 
this act wnuKI ri'ceive any iiiiTfusrd v.iliillly by ii rii riaci- < 
iiictil. Thfri- I lenvi^ lln,- iimllcr. 1 1 is viTy cicir ihm ihc ' 
territory iiii'ludiil in that treaty iiiusi he lorever tree, uidi'»« ' 
tliat law be repeahd." I 

And yet, sir, no gentleman proposed to amend 
the liiil; and it passed this branch by a vote of 
ninety-eiijht to forty-three, a larsje number of south- '< 
ern members voting with the mnjority. The bill 
went to the Senate, and was there pressed by tlie 
Senator from Illinois, without any sufj^esticin ofi 
change in its provisions so far as Vespects slavery; 
but it failed for want of time, and, 1 think, for no i 
other reason. It was at tiiis time that the .Sena- 
tor from iVlissouri [Mr. Atchison] made the dec- 1 
laration which has been alluded to in this debate, j 
He said: " j 

" I liave always been of opinion tliat the first Jrent error ' 
comniitted in the poliiioal history of this country was ihc i 
ordinance of 1787, rendering the Norlliwcsl Territory tree 
territory. The next great error was the Missouri conipro- | 
niise. l$nl they are botli irreniediabje. There is no remedy for i 
them. We must submit to them. I am prepared to do i(. 
It is evident that the Missouri compromise cannot be re- 
pealed. So far as that question is concerned, we mi^'ht as 
well agree to the adnii.>sion of this 'J'erriiory now as next 
year, or live or ten years lience." 

Now, I beg to ask, whence this new light i 
which lias so suddenly flashed upon the minds of | 
honorable and learned members.' Were they 
stark blind in 1S53? Who had rilled them of 
their memories and their wits.' If the Missouri 
compromise is unconstitutional, unjust, and super- 
seded by the principles of the coinpromise of 1850, 
in 1S54, was it not equally, so in 1853.' And if so, 
did not gentlemen know it djen as well as they do 
now.' And, if they knew it, how could they vote 
for it — so unjust, so greatly wrong, so flagrantly 
unconstitutional, as they declare it to be.' Oh! 
sir, can anything be more impudent, more auda- 
cious, more insulting to the good sense of the 
American people, than this attempt to annul the 
Missouri compromise, forthereasons nowassigned 
for the act.' 

IV. andV. The act prcparalonj to the admission 
of Missouri, if 01-iginally binding upon the South as 
a compromise, has, by repeated violations on the part 
of the Ao)7/i, ceased to have any such obligation. 
Jlnd, besides, il is iticonsislenl ivilh the comjrromise 
acts of 18.50. 

It was violated by the North, as some gentle- 
men contend, in 1821, when iMis.souri, having 
adopted a constitution, asked for admission as a 
State. The objection of the North at that time 
was, as everybody knows, or ought to know, 
wholly independent of the fact that her constitu- 
tion tolerated slaveholding. It was because that 
constitution contained a provision for the exclu- 
sion from the State of free people of color. The 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hu.s-t] has set 
this matter right so clearly and so well, that I 
need not dwell upon it. It was then that the joint 
resolution for the admission of Missouri, in which 
Mr. Clay acted so conspicuous a part, was adopt- 
ed. When this resolution was passed, and Mis- 
souri admitted, the compromise, if before inchoate 
and executory, became a fixed fact, a compact 
executed in behalf of the South, and complete and 
perfect in its obligation. If Missouri had never 



asked to be admitted, the act of the previous ses- 
sion would have remained executory, and perhaps 
repealable, without any suggestion of bad faith; 
but when it had been no far carried out as toad- 
mil Missouri, then, in all honor and good neigh- 
borhiunl, it was irrepenlable by the Snulh. 

Tlie North violated the compromihe, insists 
the gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. Stkimien's,] in 
1830", when Arkansas applied for leave to come in 
as a State. He tells us that Mr. Jolin Quincy 
Adams led off the northern firces irf'opjiosition to 
her admission, and leaves it to be inferred that 
this opposition was because she would be a slave 
State. Mark how plain a tale shall answer the 
gentleman. I quote what Mr. Adams said upon 
that occasion: 

" Mr. Cliairman, f cannot, consUienily with my sen»e 
of my obli^atioijH as a citizen of the United Slater, and 
hound liy oalli to siipporl ihe (.'onstiliilion, /ninno/ olijrct 
ti the nilmistion nf^lrknn^ns into the Union m n ulave State, 
I cannot pro;)05i- or nerce to mnke it n covititioii of her nd- 
mi.iM°on, (Au( a lonrentioii of her people ahull expunge thit 
article from her comlitution." 

Again: 

".Arkntisas, therefore, comes, and hn.s a riclit t«,comc, into 
the i;nii>n with Iter slaves anil her slave laws, ll is writ- 
ten in tlie bond ; and however F may lament lliitl it ever 
was wrUtcn, I must failhlully perform its obli'.'itions." 

The following will show what he did object to: 

" liul I am unwilliii;; that Congress, in accepting hfiT 
constiiution, should even lie under the impnlalion nfanSent- 
Ing to an ariiele in the cnnstuution of a Stale which with- 
holds from its Legislature the power of giving Ireedoiii to 
the slave." 

Is this the way history is to be read to make out 
a case .' 

Again, we are informed that this compromise 
: was violated by the North in 1845, 1848, and 
1850. 

A learned and able Senator [.Mr. Bauckr] con- 
tends that the line of 36^ 30' was to apply to 
States as well as Territories, and to all territory, 
as well to such as might thereafter be acquired, 
as to the territory then held by the United States. 
This, he says, was the idea, the principle of the 
, compromise: 

" The Missouri comproniise law intended to fi.x it as a 
' rule for all Territories of the t/nited Slates. It is applied 
in terms to all that territory which was ceded by Krance ; 
but we liad no other territory. Th.it was all the territory 
wliicli we then had, whose destiny was to be settled by an 
act of Congress. Therefore, the further principh- involved 
was this: They intended to compromise and aijjust Uie 
question between tlie ditlerent portions of the 1,'iiion ihea 
and forever." 

Well, sir, that rule or principle, as we are as- 
sured, having been violated by the North, and 
being no longer in force, was succeeded, or super- 
seded, by a new principle in 1850, the principle 
of non-intervention. 
, I cannot help thinking that these assumptions 
of the Senator are unwarranted by anything which 
has been done, or omitted to be done, by Con- 
gress, from 1820 to this time. When Missouri 
was admitted, slavery existed within her limits, 
as it did in wiiat is now Arkan.sas. There were 
then no slaves, except in Missouri, north of the 
line of 3G0 30'. The great thought, the principle 
of the compromise of 1820, was, that where sla- 
very then existed in fact, it should be permitted 
' to remain; but that from all the territory which 
I. we possessed, into which it had not found us way, 
I it should be forever excluded. The idea was 
' clearly that of prohibition. The law provided 
that in territory wliere slavery did not then actu- 
lally exist it never should exist. This was the 



12 



fact. What pnnciple but that of restriction could 
be deduced from this fact? 

In 1845, when Texas was annexed, the same 
principle was adhered to. Slavery was in Texas, 
and it was not to be abolished by Congress; but 
it was not to be extended by possibility to terri- 
tory then free; and the principle of slavery re- 
striction was distinctly affirmed. Here is the third 
article of the second section of the joint resolution 
for annexing Texas: 

"New Slates, of convenient ?ize, not exceedinz four in 
number, in addition to said State of Texas, having suffi- 
cient population, may hereafter, by the c(uisent of said 
State, be formed out of tlie tenitoVy tliereof, which shall 
be entilled to adnii^Jsion under the provit^ions of the Federal 
Constitution. And such Slates as may be formed out of 
that portion of said territory lyinp; soutli of 36° 30' north lati- 
tude, commonly l^nown as the Missouri compromise line, 
shall be admitted into the Union, with or without slavery, 
as the people of each State askinj,' admission may desire, 
^iirf in such S'ale oi- States as shall be formed out of the 
territory north of said Missouri comjiromise line, slavery or 
involuntary ser'citude (except for crime) shall be prohib- 
ited." 

The North did not at this time undertake to 
disturb the Missouri line. She did not then at- 
tempt, and she never has attempted, to interfere 
with slavery in Missouri or Arkansas, or impair 
their rights as States. 

When the Territory of Oregon was organized 
in 1848, the principle of slavery prohibition was 
recognized by the adoption of the Wilmot proviso. 
That (.he constitutionality of the proviso could 
not have been sferiously questioned at that time, 
is manifest from the fact that the Oregon bill ob- 
tained the official sanction of President Polk. 

It was when this bill was before the Senate that 
Mr. Webster said, in reference to the principle 
of the Wilmot proviso: 

" For one, I wish to avoid all committal?, all traps, by 
way of preamble or recital; and, as I do not intend to dis 
cuss Ibis question at large, I content myself with sayin:;, 
in few words, that my opposition to the further extension 
of local slavery in this cniiitry, or to the increase of slave 
representation in Congress, is neueral and nninersal. It 
has no refei^ence to limits of latitude or points of the com- 
pass, I sliall oppose all such extension, and all such in- 
crease, in all places, at all times, under ail circumstances, 
even Jigainstall inducements, against all supposed limita- 
tions of great interests, against all coiiibinations, against 

all COMl'ROMISES." 

This action of Congress was in harmony with 
the principle of the Missouri compromise, and 
•was a legitimate expression of that principle on a 
fit occasion. 

And now, sir, to come down to the compromifje 
acts of 1850. In what respect, and how, did the 
North at this time violate the compromise of 
182U.' Which of these acts is inconsistent with 
that compromise, and which contains the princi- 
ples of non-intervention .' The acts for the organ- 
ization of the Territories of Utah and New Mex- 
ico, and for the ^Texas boundary settlement, are 
the only laws of that series which bear at all upon 
these questions. Let us examine them. 

In tiie fifth clause of the first section of the 
Texas boundary bill, one of the acts constituting 
the compromise of 1850, are these words: 

" Provided, That nothing herein contained sli,^ll he con- 
strued to impair or (|nallfy anything coniaim^d in the 
third article of the second section of the joint resolution for 
anncxuig Texas to the United States, apinoved March 1, 
1845, either as regards the number of States that may here- 
after be formed out of the Slate uf Texas, or otherwise." 

Here, by reference to the joint resolution which 
I have read, we find that the Missouri compro- 
mise was not only not repudiated, not only not 
ignored, but expressly referred to and recognized 
as an existing fact and of continuing obligation; 



and yet we are told that Congress at this time was 
legislating in such way as to work its complete 
abrogation. 

The New Mexico and Utah acts provide that 
those Territories, when ready to become States, 
may be admitted with, or without slavery as their 
constitutions shall prescribe. It was not contended 
then, nor is it now, by the great majority of the 
friends of slavery prohibition, that Congress can 
control this matter in the States; and to say that 
the States can do as they please, is very far from 
saying that the Territories may. 

But the Wilmot proviso was not attached to these 
acts, and therefore its principle was abandoned. 
Abandoned! by whom ? Let us see. These bills 
were passed by the aid of such men as Clay, 
Webster, Badger, Douglas; and without their 
help, and that of many others who entertained sim- 
ilar views to theirs, they could not have become 
laws. Did they advocate them on the ground that, 
if they should pass, they would abrogate the Mis- 
souri compromise, or would operate as an abandon- 
ment in any way of the principle of prohibition .' 
Not at all; but they all affirmed the power to make 
such restriction, and most of them the propriety 
of it, where it could be of any practical service. 
But here they alleged that what was as good as 
the proviso was already in force. The Mexican 
law, they said, excluded slavery in these Territo- 
ries — it does not now exist there by law, and it 
cannot go there unless you shall legislate it in ; and 
if you are disposed to do that, you can as well re- 
peal the Wilmot proviso, if it should be adopted. 
But more, slavery is excluded by a higher law 
than this — the law of God. Here is what is equiv- 
alent to two Wihnotprovisoes; why makea third? 
It can do no possible good; it will be regarded by 
the South as an unnecessary act for the protection 
of the North, and as something insisted upon 
merely to taunt her. Considerations like these, 
all implying the duty and the principle of restric- 
tion, prevailed wiih a sufficient number of north- 
ern members to induce them to forego the Wilmot 
proviso. I think they made a mistake; but I will 
not charge them with aliandoning the principle. 
For when I see the grounds upon which they 
acted, I perceive that they meant to affirm, and 
by their action did affirm, this principle. To the 
testimony. And first, I will read from one of the 
resolutions offered by Mr. Clay, in February, 
1850: 

•'Resolved, That as slavery does not exist by law, and is 
not likely to be introduced into any of the territory acquired 
by the United Stales from the Republic ofMe.vico, it is in- 
expedient for Congress to provide by law either for its 
introduction into, or exclusion from, any part of the said 
Territory." 

From Mr. Clay's speech, made upon his reso- 
lutions, I read as follows: 

'• I take it for granted that what I have said will satisfy 
the Senate of that first truth, that slavery does not exist 
there by law, unless slavery was carried there the moment 
the tre'aty was ratified by the two parlies to the treaty, 
under the operation of the Constitution of the Uiiiu-d States. 

« Now really, I must say, that the idea that, eo instanti, 
upon the consummation of the treaty, the Consiiliilion of 
the United States spread itself over the acquired country, 
and carried along with it the institution of slavery, is so 
irreconcilable with any comprehension, or any reason 
which I possess, that I hardly know how to meet it." 

Mr. Clay, so far from thinking that the legisla- 
tion of 1850 would in principle open up the Ter- 
ritory to slavery, used this language: 

"But if, unhappily, we should be involved in war, in 
civil war, between the two parts of this Confederacy, in 
which the etfirt upon the one side should be to restrain the 
introduction of slavery into Uie new Territories, and upon 



13 



the other side to force its introduction there, what ii spec- , 
tacle should wc prcsrnl to tlic n-'loiiiF^liiiirnt ol iiiiiiikliid, 
in an ftlort, mn to piO|);ipiiic riijlits, bu( — I must say it, I 
thoii<!li I trust it will lie unclfrstood.lo bir Kind with no de- 
8i(jn to excite t'eelinj; — <i wur to /iip;ia».j/e wioim in (he ttr 
rilories thus acquired from McxiKO. It wculil he a iror in 
which ice should have no syinpitthics, no gnud iris/irs ; in 
which all manktiid would he tiiiiiintt us ; liir, t'roin the cuiii- 
nieiiccniclil of the IfevoUitioii d')Wn to lh<: present time, we 
have coiislaiilly reproacln-d our llrillsTi nncestom lor the 
iutroduclioii ol'slavery Into this country." 

Again, we find liim niftkiiig use of language like 
this: 

" I have paid that I never could vole for it myself; nnil I 
repeat, that I never can, and never will vote, and no cnrlhly 
power ever will make me voli-, to spread slavery over ter- 
ritory where it does not exist." 

Who can doubt where Henry CU\y would be on 
this question, if he were living; or ihnt, in 1850, 
he afiirincd the policy of restriction.' 

Hear Mr. Webster, inliisTth of March speech: 

"t-;r, wherever there is h particular frooil M lie done — 
wherever there is a loot of land to he slaiti Inck from he 
coiiiin;; slave territory — I am ready to assert llie principle 
of the exclusiim of slavery. 1 am pledged to it Ironi the 
year 1837 ; I have been plcd^fcd to it again and again ; and 
I will perlonii those pledges." 

Does this look like his consenting to a bill 
which he understood was, in the principle it con- 
tained, to repeal the Missouri roinpromise, and 
permit slavery to go into Nebraska? 

That you may understand, sir, what sort of 
arguments and appeals were made by .southern 
men to northern men at the time, 1 will read from 
a speech made by Senator Badgkr; and he wa.s 
not alone among southern members in this line of 
nrgnmeni and appeal: 

" Many gentlemen tell us that, in point of law, slavery 
now stands excluded from those territories. \Vi;ll, now, 
Bir, 1 have said, and I say it again— for 1 do not conceal any 
views I may enlertain on llii:i subject— that I beloiiH to that 
class of public men who entertain the opinion, and 1 have 
a verv strong eonviclion of its correctness, tliat the civil or 
municipal laws which prevailed in these ceded territories 
at the time they passed into our hands, whetlier such laws 
relate to the existence or the non existence of slavery, or 
anythinp else, continue in force; that lliey are not repealed 
by any silent and necessary operation of the (.'onstituiioii, 
and that they continue untiflhe conqueror— until the United 
States, actiiii; throush the legislaiive deparlment of the 
Government— shall think proper .ilher to repeal or modify 
those laws, or to commit to some suhordiiiale legislative 
aulhoity the power of doini; it. But there are many gen- 
tlemen— p.-rhaps the majority of soulhern statesman— who 
eiiterinin a diti'erenl opinion from that which 1 have ex- 
pressed upon this constitutional question." 

" Now, sir, in this slate of divided opinion as to the legal 
right to consider slavery a suhsisiin? institution, recognized 
and protected bylaw, by the Constitution, in these acipiired 
territories— in the generally conceded opinion that there U 
no likelihood, in point of fact, that slavery will ever reach 
these Territories— wli:it motive can be assigned, what 
reason, which addresses itself to the mind of the statesman, 
can be urged why this proviso should be ailojtted .' It « 
not a jiroiiiion which is to accomplish any ohjccl — which is 
to exrlude.hy Us force, from the Teiritory, irhal would 
otherwise Ac j'ound there. There is, there! ne, no end to 
he accomplished for which it is necessary ; there is no result 
to be iirodaced by it that wilt not come without it." 
» ». . • • * 

" It is a mere assertion of superiority ; it seems to involve 
in it something of taunt— of insult. It conveys to soulhern 
people an impression of unwillingnes.s to gratify their 
wishes, or save their feelings even, when, by so doing, noth- 
ing is los't to the majority, and no advantai;e is gained by 
us. It IS idle for gentlemen to say ' we mean it not as an 
insult.' The proviso is unnecessary if there is no reason- 
able ground for supposing that anvthing will be accom- 
plished by it that will not be accomplished witliout it; and 
since you know how we must regard it, patriotism, states- 
manship, the recognized obligations of good neighborhood, 
require you to forbear." 

While the compromise discussions of }8!)0 were 
going on, Mr. Douct.as said in the Senate: 

"The Union will not be put in peril : falifornia will be 
admitted; govemmeuts for the Territories aiuat be estab- 



lished ; and lliu« the cunlroverxy will end, and / trust for- 
ever." 

Forever! I can hnrdly think that the Senator 
then supposed that in less limn four years he 
would feel liiiil.self coiislrained, by the elTecl of 
such leKiKlnlioii as then pi-<imit>ed |)erpttual jience, 
and by a sense of duly, lo open anew the foun- 
tains of slavery a^itnlion. 

Mr. Chuirman, 1 tliink I have shown pretty 
conclusively that the compromise laws ol IWJO 
could have estalilished no mucIi prii)ci|deH as it is 
' now insisted they did. Kut if 1 nin wrong in litis,. 
1 submit that such principles could apply only lo 
future acquisitions, or lo territories whose slatm 
'. or condition in respect to slavery was not already 
fixed by law. The laws whicli contained such 
principles could not involve tiie abrogation of a 
compact which had been fully executed i|;i favor 
of one party, in such way as to wholly deprive 
the other ^lariy of what it had reluctantly accepted 
as its portion in the division. 

Having considered what 1 understcn I to be the 
^ main arguuients lor the abrogation of the Mis- 
I Bouri conifiromise, 1 pass to notice, briefly, some 
I of the minor reasons and incidental remarks by 
I which It is attempted to be justified or excused; 
jj and to submit, in closing, a lew general observa- 
i' lions on the question. 

It lias been slouily denied by the gentlemen 
from Kentucky [Mr. Ewisg and Mr. Drkckin- 
ripoe] that Mr. Clay took any leading or prom- 
inent part in the enactment of the Missouri com- 
promise; thai lie was to any con.siderable extent 
responsil)le for it, or that he would, if living, insist 
upon its preservation. 1 think these gentlemen do 
great injustice to the memory of their illustrious 
friend. 1 believe that history is entirely conclu- 
sive upon tl^is point — that Plenry Clay did more 
than any other man to effect this settlement. 1 am 
quite sure that he thought so; at any rate he knew 
that the country thought so, and he never disa- 
bused it of this opinion. He never corrected the 
statements to thiseirect, in the numerous memoirs 
and notices of his life which were published before 
his decease. He had been called the great Paciji- 
calor, the great Compromiser. Why, if not for his 
connection with this compromise, and the tarilT 
compromise of 1633? In a speech which he made 
upon the compromise of 1833, he said: 

" I derive great consoiation from finding myself, on this 
occasion, in the midst of triends with whom I have long 
acted, in peace and war, and especially wiili the honorable 
Senator from Maine, [Mr. Holmes,] with whom I lind the 
happiness to unite in a memorable in>lance. It was in this 
very Chnmher, thai senlteman presiding in the committee 
of the Sennle, and I in the committee of twenty four of the 
House of Reiiresenl(itives,on a Sabbath day, that the terms 
leere adjusted by which the compromise was ejfeited of the 
Missouri question. Then the dark clouds that hung over 
our bi'loved country were dispersed ; and now the thun- 
ders tVoni others, not less ihreatcning, and which have been 
longer accumulating, will roll over us harmless and with- 
out injury." 

I wonder if Mr. Clay did not think in 1833 that 
he had something t» do with passing the .Mis.'^ouri 
compromise? And if he believed that the compro- 
mise which dispersed the dark clouds that hung 
over the country, by the admission of a slave 
State, did not secure some substantial benefit lo 
freedom? I wonder if he, who would have felt a 
stain of dishonor like a wound, would, if he were 
on earth, hearken to such a violation of faith as 
is implied in this repeal? For the honor of that 
great and celebrated name believe it not. What- 
ever may have been Mr. Clay's connection with 
the act of March, 18,0 — and he says he has no 



14 



doubt he voted for it — the joint resolution of 1821, I 
which £;ave it effect, and the vigor and force of a [ 
compact; which enabled the s!aveholdin<j country | 
to receive and enjoy its part of the bargain; which j 
sealed the compromise, and was the compromise, j 
w-as his work. 1 

"Voiumes have been written to prove that there j 
never was sucii a man as Homer; that the Iliad j, 
and the Odys#ey are but aggregations of the bal- i 
lads, songs, &c., of the early Grecian bards; and ' 
in our own day an ingenious gentleman has under- ^ 
taken to establish the fact, and I am told that he ; 
has done it unanswerably, that there never lived j 
such a man as Napoleon Bonaparte. I am wait- '; 
ing with some impatience to see the gentlemen! 
from Kentucky rise upon this floor, and gravely , 
attempt lo convince us that Henry Clay — the great ;; 
commoner, the great pacificator, the man who , 
" would rather be right than President" — was i 
after all but the hero of a myth. j 

We have been told by southern gentlemen that ; 
this is a boon tendered by the North, and asked , 
if they are to refuse it. But are they quite sure 
that it has been offered by the North ? Would 
they reject it if not thus offered.' If so, let them ' 
stand aside, and see what the northern mem- j 
hers (who constitute a quorum of the House, and 
can themselves legally execute the tender, if they \ 
desire) will do. Then, if the boon is tendered, ' 
they may receive it and enjoy it. But let them 
not, by their votes, secure it, and then tell us, , 
the Xorlh did it. The North did it ! Does the ; 
vote on the motion of the gentlema© from New j 
York, [Mr. Cutting,] to refer the bill to the Com- 
mittee of the Whole on the state of the Union,; 
look as if the North would do any such thing? 
The vote of northern members on that motion j 
was — 103 yeas, 26 nays; as follows: I 

Yens. ' 

Maine — Benson, Farley, Fuller, Mayall, and Wasli- ; 
burn — 5. j 

New Hampshire — Kittrediie, and Morrison— 2. 
Massachusetts — Appleloii, Hanks, Crocker, De Witt, j 
Dickinson, Edniands, Goodrich, Upliani, Walley, and Tap- . 
pan VVenlworth — 10. ' 

Rhode Jsi.and — Thomas Davis, and Thurston— 2. I 

Connecticut — Belcher, Pratt, and .Seymour — 3. i 

Vermont — Meacham, Sahin, and 'I'racy — 3. j 

New York — Bennett. Carpenter, Chase, Cutting, Fen- ! 
ton, Flasler, Hastings, Haven, Hughes, Daniel T. Jones, ] 
Lyon, Matteson, Maurice, Morpan, Murray, Andrew 
Oliver, Peck, Peckham, Bishop Perkins, Pringle, Sage, 
Simnioiis, Gerrit .Smith, John J. Taylor, Walbridge, West- 
brook, and Wheeler — 27. j 
New Jersey — Lilly, Penninaton, Skelton, and Vail — 4. i 
PENNSVLVANIA—Ciiandler, Curtis, Dick, Everliart,Gam '. 
ble. Grow, Hiester, McCulloch, Middleswarth, David 
Ritchie, Russell, Straub, Trout, and Witte— 14. I 
Ohio — Ball, Bliss, Campbell, Corwiii, Ed};erton, Ellison, ; 
Gidilin^'s, Green, Aaron Harlan, Harrison, Johnson, Nich 
ols, Thomas L. Ritchie, Andrew Stuart, John L. Taylor, ' 
and Wade— 16. , 
Indiana— Chamberlain, Eddy, Andrew J. Harlan, Lane, , 
Mace, and Parker — 6. 

"Illinois— Bi-sell, Knox, Norton, E. B. Washburne,i 
John Wentworth, and Yates— 6. 1 

Michigan — Nnble, and HestorL. Stevens — 2. 
Wisconsin — Eastman, M;icy, and ^Vells — 3. 

Nays. 
Maine — McDonald — 1. 
New Hampshire — Hibbard — 1. 
Connecticut — IngersoU — 1. 
Vermont — None. 
Rhode Island — None. 
Massachusetts — None. 
New York— Mike Walsh— 1. 
New Jersey — None. 

Pennsylvania — Dawson, Florence, J. Glancy Jones 
Kurtz, McNair, Packer, Robbins, and Hendrick B 
Wrifiht- 8. 
Ohio — Disney, Olds, and Shannon — 3. 
Indiana — JohuG. Davis, EngliBli, Hendricks, and Smith 
Miller — 4. * 



Illinois — James Allen, Willis Allen, and Richard- 
son — 3. 
Michigan — Clark — 1. 
Iowa — Hcnn — 1. 
Wisconsin — None. 

California — Latham, and McDougall— 2. 
Men talk about southern principles and north- 
ern principles in connection with this question, 
often, it seems tT> me, with little thought of what 
they are saying: as if in a controversy in respect 
to honor, good faith, and historical truth, there 
could be any difference of principle among honor- 
able men North or South; as if questions of 
fidelity and fact were to be determined by degrees 
of latitude; as if northern principles or southern 
principles would tolerate a palpable breach of a 
contract deliberately entered into, whenever either 
section should believe its interests would be pro- 
moted by such breach. With the gentlem.an from 
Louisiana [Mr. Hunt] I may, and undoubtedly 
do, differ on many points concerning the institu- 
tion of slavery. But, sir, as to what good faith 
and honor require in the matter of engagements and 
compacts, we can have no difference. When, the 
other day, he stood up in this Hall, and with the 
spirit and bearing of a just and honorable man, 
denounced, in bold and eloquent terms, what he 
could not help believing to be a violation of a 
solemn compact, there was not a man in his 
presence but respected him — not a true, brave 
heart but felt better and braver than before, and 
stronger in his own ability and purpose to do 
his duty like a man, whatever he might deem 
that duty to be; — not one but felt within him 
something of the dignity and grandeur of a true 
manhood. Mr. Chairman, with the cant of" our 
northern brethren" and "our southern breth- 
ren," I am tired and sick. We are brothers 
all, and we know and feel it; but why talk 
about it everlastingly, and too often in such man- 
ner as to imply to all high-toned minds that it 
is but talk. I'fear not that any southern man, 
worthy of the South, will doubt that he has my 
respect as truly as if he belonged to my own sec- 
tion of the country, although I may not be con- 
tinually reminding him of the fact. And there are 
northern men who can never, in their hearts, believe 
that they possess it, let me tell them what I will. 
But, sir, this Nebraska business, bad as it is — and 
God knows it could not easily l)e worse — will not 
be without its compensations. If I do not misread 
the signs of the times, they portend a " hard win- 
ter " to a class of politicians in the North; some 
of whom, I am told, have heretofore found their 
way into these Halls. I refer to the 'Umble Heeps 
and respectable Littimers of politics — your self- 
sacrificing patriots, who " abase themselves that 
they may be exalted;" your soft-footed men, who 
profess one thing at home, and vote another 
here, and who are always but too happy if they can 
obtain the countenance and patronage of older 
flunkeys than themselves. 

Mr. Chairman, of the motives which have influ- 
enced the Senator from Illinois and the President in 
their action upon this question, I am not authorized 
to judge. It has been suggested that party straits 
and necessities required this measure of the Ad- 
ministration. But what party end or acquisition 
could justify such awful price.' No, sir; we must 
not yield to this suggestion. 

Shall we believe that the inducing cause of such 
action was to aid any man's prospects for the 
Presidency.' To raise such an issue as this ques- 
tion presents, for such purpose, would be a wan- 
tonness of wickedness v/hich should in itself pre- 



15 



elude the belief that it could have found entrance 
into the breast of any man. Away, theri, with 
this uncharitableness. The life of man is short — 
the Presidency and its honors are but for a day, 
but this measure runs with the prosperity anil 
happiness of millions of human beinga for ages. 
Let it not be considered possible, for it is not, that 
any nan, whether in hiijh or low position, inten- 
tionally, dertignedly, with a view of the Ifgitimate 
consequences of tlje act, could for such object, ori- 
ginate a measure like tliis. 

Sir, the misfortune of our time is that it run 
across the era of " little men in lofiy places, • 
• * the men so little and the places so lofly, 
that, casting my pebble 1 only show where they 
stand" — of politicians and not statesmen, of dex- 
trous and cunning ratiier than wise and strong 
men, who, looking before and after, scan, with 
unerring vision, the just proportions of public 
measures, comprehend their meaning, and foresee 
their consequences. There are edtlies in the cur- 
rent of every nation's history, where the sup|>le 
and the adroit perform their feats and play fantas- 
tic gambols to the delight and admiration of the 
bystanders, gaining such applause as is yielded 
to the ring and tight rope, until they tire of their 
profitless exhibitions, and sink, and are forgotten. 
INo success can be but nominal; no popularity, 
however wide-spread and boisterous, can l)e more 
than temporary, which have not the foundations 
of great and wise deserving. 

An honorable Senator from South Carolina, 
[Mr. Butler,] a very able man, with whose 
clearness of statement, and scholarly, vigorous 
style 1 am always delighted, has said: 

" I will iindprtJike to maintain that llie Missouri com- 
promise, iiotwitlistnnding the laudations of llie lionorahle 
Senator from Texas, [Afr. Houston,] instead of bringlnj; 
With it peace and harmony, has broii<»ht with it si'cliorial 
strife ; that it is, instead ot being a healin'r salve, a thorn in 
the side of the southern portion of this Confederacy, and 
the sooner you extract it, the sooner you will reatore har- 
mony and liealth to the body -poliiic." 

If this be true, how does it happen ? Because 
the North has ever been unfaithful to her part of 
the agreement? Surely not. She has at all times 
lived up to the very letter of tiie bond, and lias 
never, in any manner, done that v/hich could be 
construed by suspicion herself as impugning its 
spirit. That the compromise is a tnorn in the 
side of the South, is no fault of the North. If it 
be such a thorn, it is simply because slavery can 
submit to no limits or restraints, not even to those 
itself imposes. It is for the reason that slavery is 
under an inevitable, inexorable necessity to be 
constantly aggressive; that no barriers can hold 
it, no repose give it rest. It must go forward, or 
die — the moment it halts, it recedes. 

Let us see how things have gone on during this 
century. In 18U3, Louisiana, a slave Territory, 
was purchased of France. Three slave States 
and one free State have been formed out of it; and 
we are now told that freedom has had enough. 
Then, in 1819, Florida was purchased, to make 
a«other slave State. In 1845 Texas was annexed, 
to give us five more, while the free States have 
acquired but California, and a hope for New Mex- 
ico and Utah. These Territories were organized 
in 1850, without the Wilmot proviso. Whether 
or not the North yielded anything of practical 
value in this, she was made to recede from a posi- 
tion which she felt herself bound in honor and all 
fidelity to a great cause to maintain. By one of 
the compromise laws of this year she was made 
to pay to Texas her portion of §10,000,000, to in- 



I duce the consent of that State to a boundary line 
J with New Mexico, although she was far from 
, being satisfied that Texas had given up any terri- 
tory to which she had a jusi claim. But of this 
she made little com|)laint. 

Then the fugitive slave law was passed; but I 
need not tell you what she thought of tliat — how 
hard it was to take — nor that she submitted to it 
as gracefully tvi she could. The learned and dis- 
tinguished Senator from M JssacliUHetts [Mr. Ev- 
kkktt] will not be charged with having overstated 
the case when he said, a few weeks ago, in the 
, Senate, that Mr. Webster, in his 7lh of March 
speech, 

" Went to the very verge of the public sentiment in the 
nonslnveholdini; HtiitcH, and that to have gone a linir'a 
breadth furtlx-r, wonid have been a step (00 bold even fur 
, his gruut weight of character." 

It was in reference to these oets that General 
Foote said, in December, 1851, that the South had 
gained all that she claimed; and when he said this, 
' he had no ihmijjlit that she had obtained the abro- 
gation of the Missouri compromise. 

Sir, when the North had, by this legislation, 
yielded so much for the sake of peace and har- 
mony, and when the finality and comprehensive- 
ness of the settlement had been a.Tirnied again and 
again, she did not fear, she had no reason to fear, 
a reopening of the slavery question so soon as 
this; certainly not by those who succeeded so well 
in the arrangement which had been efl'ected. She 
had acquiesced; she was quiet. She had made no 
aggressions, meditated none. At such a time, and 
under such circumstances, you of the South pro- 
cure, or permit this bill to be brought into these 
Halls. Though introduced by a northern Sena- 
tor, acting in concert with a northern President, it 
is nevertheless your measure, supjiorted as it is 
by nearly the entire southern ilelegation in Con- 
gress. Without such support it could not live an 
kour. It is you, then, who are responsible for 
the agitation it will not fail to produce, and for all 
the consequences that will result from its intro- 
duction. Tliree months ago the country was in 
profound repose, a repose which the North has in 
no way sought to disturb; but which she finds, to 
her grief and alarin, you are bent upon destroy- 
ing. She has not moved. She stands v.here you 
placed her in 1820, and upon the title v.'liich you 
confirmed in 18.50, and in 1852. She claims not 
what is yours, but only to the limits yourselves 
have set down. Can she, with safely or honor, 
recede from those limits ? If she does, where can 
she stop, and what guarantees can you give her 
inore solemn and binding than you have given 
already? You may persist in your attempts to 
expel her from her just and purchased possession; 
but I think you will find it a more difficult enter- 
prise than you imagined in the beginning. 

Pass this bill, and you kindle a fire which will 
need all the rain in the sweet heavens to extin- 
guish, unless you shall consent to its unqualified 
repeal. If the fire shall not blaze up at once, and 
fill the sky, it will burn the more intensely when 
it does break out. The excitement on the day of 
the passage of the law (if that day shall come) will 
not be so great as it will be in six months there- 
after, nor then as in twelve. Sir, if, by the aid of 
treachery in her household, you shall sucfteed in 
depriving the North of this fair domain, dedicated 
by your fathers and our fathers to freedom and 
freemen forever, you will return it all. You can- 
not afford to keep it, and I believe you will not 
desire to keep it. 



16 



So far from your being permitted to comfort 
yourselves, as the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr 
Stephen's,] and others, have done, with the ide 
that the North will acquiesce in this measure a 
she did in those of 1850, be assured that her sut 
mission then will nerve her to the more earnes 
and determined opposition now. Upon question 
relating to slavery the South has always bee 
united. She could at any time bring all her force 
to bear upon any point to which she would direct 
them. In this she has had great advantage over 
the North. Unity of purpose and action, con- 
centration of power, have the practical value of 
vast forces in themselves. 

The North, not having been alarmed by the 
growth and approaches of slavery heretofore, has 
never been deeply and thoroughly stirred. She 
has been influenced by abstractions and sentiment, 
rather llTan by the power of direct interest; and 
she has seldom seen any practical good to be ac- 
comf)lished by agitation. But let this bill become 
a law, and you convince her that it is true — as 
some have asserted, but the many denied — that 
slavery is aggressive, boldly, badly aggressive; 
that it knows no law, regards no compacts, keeps 
no faith, and derides those who trust it; you 
unite the whole North by the motives of interest, 
and by a sense of injury and deep wrong, as well 
as by the power of a generous sentiment. You 
do that which will tend, more than all things else, 
to array a fierce and unrelenting opposition to 
your institution wherever it can be reached under 
the Constitution. And why will such opposition 
be arrayed .■' From the irresistible promptings of 
self-preservation; for, in this event, the North will 
be forced to believe that the time has come when 
slavery must be crippled, or freedom go to the 
wall. 

Mr. Chairman, I have felt bound to speak truly 
and faithfully what I feel and fear. It can afford 
me no pleasure to witness or participate in the 
controversy that must arise if this measure shall 
prevail. I would avert it, if possible, as I would 
prevent, for however short a period, the formation 
of sectional issues and sectional parties in this 
countr)'. With such issues once distinctly and 
squarely presented, and such parties deliberately 
and fully organized, our future, though it may not 
be without hope and without promise, will be 
dark, dark, shaded 

" With hues, bs when some mighty painter dips 
His pen in dyes of earthquake and eclipse." 

Yet not so dark and cheerless as it would be if 
the North should so shrink from the behests of 
honor and duty, become so blind to the moral 
lights of the age, and so regardless of the glorious 
traditions of the past, as to submit tamely and 
ignobly to the exactions and' aggressions which 
fanaticism is preparing to make. And, sir, I 
would avert it as I would prevent the dissolution 
of the party with which I have always been con- 
nected. To part company with those with v/hom 
we have long been politically associated, with 
whom we have sorrowed in defeat and rejoiced 
in victory, is what cannot be contemplated without 
the deepest pain. But if it be true that the great 
body of southern Whigs in both Houses of Con- 
gress have determined to make a sectional issue 
upon this question, and by their vote declare to 
us of the North that good faith, solemn, mutual 
covenants, the loftiest obligations of honor, (as 
we must thinkj) and all the ties which, for a quar- 




ter of a century, have bound a great party together 

*" "' ' """""iation, are as the 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS |ict with a fancied 
the Senator from 
caucus of south- 
was held a few 
ed a work of su- 
...„„ d the dissolution 

011 897 869 "sii^ ^^^ ^° National 
*v lug |jui.j >,„ „^ ^^ Well, gentlemen, 

it must be as your course shall constrain; and if 
i you will have it so, it only remains for us of the 

North to bid you a "long good night." 
And what then — and what then.' In 1848 Daniel 

Webster told the farmers of Plymouth county, in 

the old Bay State, that there was no North; but, 

it will be remembered, that he predicted, at the 
I same time, that there would be a North. I^et this 

bill become a law, and prophecy will not loiter on 
1 the way to fulfillment. There will be a North; 

and I think you will be at no loss to discover 
i where it is, and in no doubt as to the position of 
i northern Whigs. How can you believe that we 
j can remain quiet? Pray look at this measure; con- 
I sider what it is, and what it implies. It opens up 
j the wide regions of Kansas and Nebraska — an 
j area nearly as large as is occupied by the free 

States of this Union, and dividing them from the 
j Pacific ocean — to the institution of slavery; nay, 
I it invites it to go there. It reverses the ancient 
! policy of the Government, which was restriction, 
I and inaugurates a new policy, that of slavery ex- 
j tension. It presents considerations which will 

meet us everywhere, on sea and shore, in our 

fields of enterprise, in our places of business, at 
i our thresholds and firesides. No evasions, no 
! subterfuges, no compromises will be left to which 
\ men can resort, or upon which they can rely. 

No one will be so blind as not to see that, with 
; this new policy, this invitation, slavery, will be 
j carried at once into Kansas, as well adapted 
I to its occupancy as Kentucky, Missouri, or the 

■ half of Virginia; carried there for political, if 
[ not for economical reasons; and that, once in- 

! troduced under such circumstances, possessing 
j such " coigne of vantage," it will be permanently 
established there. Sir, the North will — for she 
, must — oppose this measure to the end. And in the 
i business of resistance, or restoration, if it shall 
I come to that, she will labor firmly, faithfully, and, 

■ I doubt not, effectively. Mr. Chairman, the ag- 
gression will be stayed, tfee tide will be rolled back, 

i and the ancient policy of the Government con- 

■ firmed — restriction in the Territories, non- 
intervention IN THE States. To doubt it were 
to admit, indeed, that there is no North, and no 

: hope of a North; it were to admit adegeneracyin 
i her people more swift, more thorough and mourn- 
': ful, than ever marked the history of any Other peo- 
I pie since the birth of time; it were to confess the 
j descendants of Hancock, Adams, Warren, and 
j Franklin, of Sherman, Livingston, and old Put- 
nam, the most pitiful slaves themselves. To doubt 
it were to admit that slavery has the indwellirf^, 
I central power of immortal truth ; that liberty is but 
I a name, and the love of it a phantasy — a delusion. 
j But, sir, we will not doubt it. We know that in 
I all human affairs there are seasons of action and 
j of reaction, of victory and defeat. But we also 
know that, in the end , nothing shall prevail against 
truth; and no verity is more grand, more immu- 
table, than this: " There is nothing on earth 
; divine beside humanitt." 



